Notable Recent Publications

These are some recent publications which give a flavour of the research from the Barclay lab. For a complete list of publications, please see below.


Species difference in ANP32A underlies influenza A virus polymerase host restriction. Nature (2016).
Jason S. Long, Efstathios S. Giotis, Olivier Moncorgé, Rebecca Frise, Bhakti Mistry, Joe James, Mireille Morisson, Munir Iqbal, Alain Vignal, Michael A. Skinner & Wendy S. Barclay

This paper identified a key factor that explained why the polymerases from avian influenza viruses are restricted in humans.  For more, please see the associated New and Views.

See our latest ANP32 papers here: eLIFE, Journal of Virology, Journal of Virology.


The mechanism of resistance to favipiravir in influenza. PNAS (2018).
Daniel H. GoldhillAartjan J. W. te VelthuisRobert A. FletcherPinky LangatMaria ZambonAngie Lackenby & Wendy S. Barclay

This paper showed how influenza could evolve resistance to favipiravir, an antiviral that may be used to treat influenza. The residue that mutated to give resistance was highly conserved suggesting that the mechanism of resistance may be applicable to other RNA viruses.


Internal genes of a highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus determine high viral replication in myeloid cells and severe outcome of infection in mice. Plos Path. (2018).
Hui Li*, Konrad C. Bradley*, Jason S. Long, Rebecca Frise, Jonathan W. Ashcroft, Lorian C. Hartgroves, Holly Shelton, Spyridon Makris, Cecilia Johansson, Bin Cao & Wendy S. Barclay

Why do avian influenza viruses like H5N1 cause such severe disease in humans? This paper demonstrated that H5N1 viruses replicate better than human viruses in myeloid cells from mice leading to a cytokine storm and more severe disease.


Citation

BibTex format

@unpublished{Gibani:2020:10.1101/2020.08.13.20174193,
author = {Gibani, M and Toumazou, C and Sohbati, M and Sahoo, R and Karvela, M and Hon, T-K and De, Mateo S and Burdett, A and Leung, F and Barnett, J and Orbeladze, A and Luan, S and Pournias, S and Sun, J and Flower, B and Bedzo-Nutakor, J and Amran, M and Quinlan, R and Skolimowska, K and Klaber, R and Davies, G and Muir, D and Randell, P and Crook, D and Taylor, G and Barclay, W and Mughal, N and Moore, L and Jeffery, K and Cooke, G},
doi = {10.1101/2020.08.13.20174193},
publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory},
title = {CovidNudge: diagnostic accuracy of a novel lab-free point-of-care diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.20174193},
year = {2020}
}

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - UNPB
AB - Background Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of SARS-CoV-2. Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe the development and diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care RT-PCR test, the DnaNudge® platform CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing.Methods Nasopharyngeal swabs are inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as positive control. Between April and May 2020, swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge direct-to-cartridge platform and standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium. Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred healthcare workers with suspected COVID-19 (Group 1, n=280/386; 73%); patients attending the emergency department with suspected COVID-19 (Group 2, n=15/386; 4%) and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19 (Group 3, n=91/386; 23%).Results Of 386 paired samples tested across all groups, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the test varied by group (Group 1 93% [84-98%], Group 2 100% [48-100%] and Group 3 100% [29-100%], giving an average sensitivity of 94.4% (95% confidence interval 86-98%) and an overall specificity of 100% (95%CI 99-100%; Group 1 100% [98-100%]; Group 2 100% [69-100%] and Group 3 100% [96-100%]). Point of care testing performance was comparable during a period of high (25%) and low (3%) background prevalence. Amplification of the viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, n3) targets were most sensitive for detection of SARS-CoV2, with the assay able to detect 1×104 viral particles in
AU - Gibani,M
AU - Toumazou,C
AU - Sohbati,M
AU - Sahoo,R
AU - Karvela,M
AU - Hon,T-K
AU - De,Mateo S
AU - Burdett,A
AU - Leung,F
AU - Barnett,J
AU - Orbeladze,A
AU - Luan,S
AU - Pournias,S
AU - Sun,J
AU - Flower,B
AU - Bedzo-Nutakor,J
AU - Amran,M
AU - Quinlan,R
AU - Skolimowska,K
AU - Klaber,R
AU - Davies,G
AU - Muir,D
AU - Randell,P
AU - Crook,D
AU - Taylor,G
AU - Barclay,W
AU - Mughal,N
AU - Moore,L
AU - Jeffery,K
AU - Cooke,G
DO - 10.1101/2020.08.13.20174193
PB - Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
PY - 2020///
TI - CovidNudge: diagnostic accuracy of a novel lab-free point-of-care diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.20174193
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.20174193v1
ER -

Contact us


For any enquiries related to this group, please contact:

Professor Wendy Barclay
Chair in Influenza Virology 
+44 (020) 7594 5035
w.barclay@imperial.ac.uk